SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Ruling In Tata Steel Case, Upholds Entry Tax On H.R. Sheets
Case Title : TATA STEEL PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD Versus THE COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAX
Case Number : Diary No. 12365 of 2026
The Supreme Court of India on Monday declined to interfere with a ruling of the Allahabad High Court that hot rolled (H.R.) coils and H.R. sheets are not the same commodity, and that tax exemption available to coils cannot be claimed for sheets, thereby restoring entry tax and penalty against Tata Steel Processing and Distribution Ltd. A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi found no ground to interfere with the order of the Allahabad high court and dismissed the special leave petition.
Supreme Court Dismisses Customs Challenge Against ITC Ltd Over Quicklime Classification
Case Title : PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT) Versus M/S ITC LIMITED
Case Number : Diary No. 15126-2026
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the Customs Department's challenge against ITC Ltd, upholding a ruling that treated imported “quicklime” as an industrial form of lime rather than a chemically pure compound. The classification turned on whether the product, containing about 92% calcium oxide, could be considered a high-purity chemical. A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan found no grounds to interfere with the CESTAT Kolkata Bench order dated June 20, 2025, which had held in favour of ITC Ltd. on the issue of classification of imported goods.
HIGH COURTS
Andhra Pradesh HC
Case Title : Mytrah Energy India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 4725/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 33
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside a GST assessment order against Mytrah Energy India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the assessing authority failed to properly examine the nature of the transaction and wrongly applied a notification retrospectively. The Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar held that the assessment order was unsustainable for failure to examine the nature of supply and accordingly remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Bombay HC
Case Title : Shemaroo Entertainment Limited Vs The Union of India & Ors
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 16848 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 218
The Bombay High Court has referred to a Larger Bench the question of whether the GST Department can issue a single consolidated show cause notice covering multiple financial years under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act. A Bench of Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe noted a clear cleavage of opinion among High Courts on the issue and held that an authoritative determination is necessary. The court noted that while some High Courts have upheld such consolidated notices, others have held them to be impermissible, leading to divergent judicial views.
Bombay High Court Sets Aside GST Cancellation Order For Lack Of Reasons
Case Title : Tex Fab India Vs Union Of India & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 1118 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 217
The Bombay High Court has set aside an order cancelling the GST registration of Tex Fab India after finding that the impugned order did not contain any reasons. The Court also recorded that the attachment of the petitioner's bank account had lapsed by operation of law under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act. A bench of Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe observed that the issue was no longer res integra and that recording reasons while cancelling GST registration is a settled legal requirement.
Case Title : Seco Tools India Pvt Ltd vs State of Maharashtra & Ors
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.3704 OF 2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 222
The Bombay High Court has held that while an amalgamation order is chargeable to stamp duty as a “conveyance”, stamp authorities cannot levy duty on such an order by treating accounting entries such as goodwill, share premium, or profit and loss figures as consideration in the absence of any real issuance of shares or payment of money. Holding that amounts reflected in accounts can be considered for stamp duty only if they are clearly linked to actual issuance of shares or real payment of consideration, a bench of Justice Amit Borkar observed: “If there is money paid, that can be counted. But if there is neither, then the authority cannot create a value by picking up accounting entries and calling them consideration. That would be going beyond the law. It would make the provision wider than what the Legislature has written. Therefore, unless the amounts shown in the accounts can clearly be linked to actual issuance of shares or actual payment of consideration, they cannot be used for levying stamp duty.”
Input Tax Credit Blocking Cannot Continue Beyond One Year From Imposition: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Elitecon International Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 4899 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 224
The Bombay High Court has recently reiterated that a restriction on utilization of Input Tax Credit in the Electronic Credit Ledger cannot continue beyond one year from the date of its imposition. A division bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe, examining Rule 86A(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, observed, "Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we are of the considered view that there appears to be much substance in the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner, that the blocking of ITC in the ECL of the Petitioner beyond the period of one year is against the mandate of Rule 86A(3) of the CGST Rules. This is further clear from the very language of the aforesaid Rule, which provides that the restriction as envisaged, of blocking of the ITC will cease to have effect after expiry of the period of one year from the date of imposing such restriction. Rule 86A (3) thus provides for an automatic unblocking of credit post the expiry of one year."
Case Title : Infinx Services Private Limited Vs The Union of India through, the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.11996 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 227
The Bombay High Court has set aside a GST refund rejection against Infinx Services Private Limited, finding that the tax department shut the company out of the process by deciding the case without giving it a hearing, even after it asked for time citing heavy rains in Mumbai. A Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe held that the order had been passed without affording a personal hearing despite a specific request to reschedule the hearing on account of heavy rains in the city.
Case Title : Covestro India Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Customs & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No.11540 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 233
The Bombay High Court recently observed that Commissioner of Customs cannot issue public notices in a manner that dilutes the benefits under free trade agreements or overrides statutory provisions and CBIC circulars, while setting aside an order denying preferential duty to Covestro India Pvt. Ltd. The dispute arises from a public notice issued in March 2024 by the Commissioner of Customs at Nhava Sheva, which prescribed additional documentation requirements in cases involving third-party invoicing, including submission of the exporter's invoice and value breakup for verification of country-of-origin claims.
Delhi HC
Case Title : Kanika Exports v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 12512/2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 393
The Delhi High Court has clarified that the determination of the “relevant date” for computing limitation under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) depends on the nature of the refund claimed, and that the 2019 amendment to the provision cannot be applied retrospectively to defeat vested rights of taxpayers. A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain was dealing with petitions challenging rejection of refund claims for unutilised input tax credit (ITC) on the ground of limitation.
Case Title : Sandeep Kumar v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import) Air Cargo Complex
Case Number : W.P.(C) 4502/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 399
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed writ petitions challenging adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act, holding that non-communication of an order extending time for adjudication does not, by itself, vitiate the proceedings. A bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul relied on Pranij Heights India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Joint Commissioner of Customs where it was held that although as a matter of prudence the Customs Department ought to intimate the grant of extension to the concerned parties, non-communication thereof would not, by itself, constitute a fatal error, since Section 28 of the Customs Act does not stipulate communication of such extension as a mandatory pre-condition to its validity.
Case Title : Akee International v. Deputy Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 5063/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 400
The Delhi High Court has recently declined to direct a third re-test of goods under Customs proceedings, holding that such a request cannot be insisted upon at the mere instance of a party and that the decision lies within the discretion of the adjudicating authority, particularly where two test reports are already on record. A bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul dismissed a writ petition filed by an exporter seeking the quashing of a show cause notice and a direction for re-testing of seized shawls allegedly containing prohibited material.
Delhi HC Sets Aside GST Demand Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Unserved SCN
Case Title : NHD Motors v. GNCTD
Case Number : W.P.(C) 17505/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 401
The Delhi High Court has recently set aside a GST demand order after finding that the show cause notice (SCN) was not effectively served on the assessee, holding that a reminder issued in respect of such an SCN cannot be treated as a valid communication. A bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul thus set aside a GST demand order after finding that the SCN had not been properly communicated to the petitioner.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside GST Demand Order Despite Delay In Filing Writ, Cites Denial Of Hearing
Case Title : Sun International Limited v. The Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3153/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 402
The Delhi High Court has recently set aside a GST demand order after finding that the taxpayer was not given an opportunity of hearing, even though the writ petition was filed belatedly A bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul set aside a GST demand order passed under Section 73 of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, while imposing costs and granting conditional relief to the petitioner.
Delhi High Court Quashes State GST Order Citing Overlapping Proceedings With CGST Authority
Case Title : Maa Jagdambe Engineering Works v. Commissioner Of Trade & Taxes
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3635/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 410
The Delhi High Court has quashed an order passed by the State GST Authority against an engineering firm, holding that in the facts of the case, where proceedings had already been initiated earlier by the Central GST authority and involved overlapping entities, the State authority ought not to have proceeded further having regard to the mandate of Section 6 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul was dealing with a challenge to an order dated December 18, 2025, passed by the State GST officer based on a demand-cum-show cause notice dated July 2, 2025.
Case Title : Radha Rani Metal v. Principal Commissioner Of Goods And Service Tax, North Delhi
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1180/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 411
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a review petition filed by the GST Department against an earlier ruling restricting retrospective cancellation of a firm's GST registration. The court observed that in the facts of the case, the Department, having chosen to invite a decision on merits instead of withdrawing the defective show cause notice and seeking liberty to issue a fresh one, could not subsequently seek to reopen the issue in review jurisdiction.
Gujarat HC
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs, Kandla v. Alka Petro Global Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : R/TAX APPEAL NO.889 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 58
The Gujarat High Court on 15 April 2026 held that the appellate forum under the Customs Act, 1962 must be determined by the actual rank and statutory authority exercised by the adjudicating officer, and not by any incorrect or clerical mention in the order. A Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Supehia and Pranav Trivedi dismissed the Department's Tax Appeal and upheld the CESTAT's order, holding that the appeal was correctly filed before the Tribunal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962.
Delay In GST Appeal Condonable On Showing Sufficient Cause: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Manjulaben Vinod Patel v. The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax & Anr.
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17603 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 59
The Gujarat High Court on 17 April, held that a short delay in filing an appeal under the GST regime can be condoned if the appellant demonstrates “sufficient cause”, and that appellate authorities must apply their mind to the reasons instead of mechanically rejecting appeals on limitation. A Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Supehia and Pranav Trivedi allowed the writ petition filed by Manjulaben Vinod Patel and quashed the appellate order rejecting the appeal as time-barred.
Kerala HC
Case Title : Kerala Gramin Bank v. Saifudheen M and Ors
Case Number : OP(C) No. 2628 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 68
The Kerala High Court has held that a hypothecation agreement executed to secure a loan attracts stamp duty as a general agreement under Article 5(g) of the Kerala Stamp Act and not as a pledge or mortgage, which attracts higher duty. Clarifying the position, the court said Article 6 of the Act applies only to pledges. “Article 6 of the Act will get attracted only if the instrument in question is a 'pledge'. On a conspectus reading of the agreement of hypothecation, it is evident that the possession of the vehicle is still with the borrower. If that be so, it passes one's comprehension as to how the deed of hypothecation will qualify as an instrument of pledge".
Conditional Land Tax Acceptance Unsustainable Without Civil Court Adjudication: Kerala High Court
Case Title : M/s Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala
Case Number : WP(C)NO.20484 OF 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 72
The Kerala High Court on 5 March held that the State cannot impose conditions while accepting land tax that create a cloud over title, as such disputes require adjudication by a competent civil court and cannot be decided through administrative endorsements. A Division Bench comprising Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S set aside the condition in Order G.O.(Ms.)No.172/2019/Rev. dated 6 June 2019 and declined to direct unconditional acceptance of land tax, while permitting the petitioner to approach the competent authority with proper applications for consideration under the applicable statutory framework.
Madhya Pradesh HC
MP High Court Sets Aside Commercial Tax On Diamond Cement For Sale Of Food In Factory Canteen
Case Title : Diamond Cement v. Additional Commissioner Commercial Tax
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No. 27748 of 2003
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 27
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has, applying settled law, set aside the levy of commercial tax on subsidised food supplied in a factory canteen run as a statutory welfare measure in a 1995–96 assessment involving Diamond Cement, while upholding the rest of the demand. The court, however, upheld tax liability on scrap sales, coal purchases, and denial of set-off on certain items. The bench, consisting of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal, partly allowed the writ petition filed by M/s Diamond Cement challenging the assessment for the year 1995–96 under the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994.
Madras HC
Madras High Court Holds Cut Tobacco Processed With Jaggery Water Is Unmanufactured Tobacco
Case Title : Arumugam v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : W.A.(MD) No.1988 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 109
The Madras High Court has recently held that cut tobacco processed by curing with jaggery water and sold in cut form would be classifiable as unmanufactured tobacco, setting aside advance rulings that had described it as manufactured chewing tobacco and subjected it to a higher compensation cess under GST. The court set aside the rulings of the Authority for Advance Ruling and the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, as well as a single judge's order that had upheld the description of the product as manufactured chewing tobacco.
Madras High Court Quashes GST Demand On GAIL, Says No Recovery If Tax Already Paid
Case Title : Gail (India) Ltd. v. The Additional Commissioner
Case Number : W.P.(MD)No.13152 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 110
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has quashed a show cause notice issued to GAIL (India) Ltd. under Section 76 CGST Act, holding that recovery proceedings cannot be sustained where the tax collected has already been remitted to the Government, even if paid through another GST registration of the same entity. The bench of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that, “Section 76 of the CGST Act is clear and simple. Any person collecting any money as tax cannot retain it for himself, even if the tax is not chargeable. Ultimately, it is the person who wrongfully bore the incidence of tax who is entitled to a refund, and the person who collects has no say. Thus, neither is the tax amount wrongly collected, nor is it wrongfully retained.”
Telangana HC
Telangana High Court Refuses Challenge To Arrest Of Fino Payments Bank CEO In ₹840 Crore GST Case
Case Title : Rishi Nand Kishore Gupta v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number : W.P. No.6657 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 18
The Telangana High Court has upheld the arrest of Fino Payments Bank CEO Rishi Nand Kishore Gupta in an alleged ₹840 crore GST evasion case, holding that the 24-hour safeguard under Article 22(2) of the Constitution was not violated and observing that his contention of being in custody prior to arrest did “not merit acceptance.” Dismissing his writ petition, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin held that Gupta was produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest.
Uttarakhand HC
Uttarakhand High Court Sets Aside GST Order Passed Same Day As Reply, Calls Hearing An “Eyewash”
Case Title : M/s Poddar Ispat Pvt. Ltd. v. Office of the Deputy Commissioner & another
Case Number : WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 286 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(UTT) 6
Observing that passing an adjudication order on the very same day as filing of reply without granting a meaningful opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice, the High Court of Uttarakhand set aside GST demand and penalty proceedings against Poddar Ispat Pvt. Ltd. The bench, consisting of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay, stated that the mere recording of a hearing on the date of filing a reply does not satisfy the requirement of a fair opportunity.
CESTAT
CESTAT Grants Relief To Bharat Hotels, Sets Aside Service Tax On Forfeited Booking Advances
Case Title : Bharat Hotels Limited v. Commissioner of CGST-New Delhi
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 54762 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 187
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has recently set aside a service tax demand against Bharat Hotels Limited on amounts retained upon cancellation of hotel room bookings. A coram of Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao allowed the appeal and held that advance amounts forfeited as “room retention charges” cannot be taxed under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994.
CESTAT Delhi Rejects AAI's ₹30.31 Lakh Excess Service Tax Refund Claim Over Delay
Case Title : Airports Authority of India v. Principal Commissioner of CGST Delhi East
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51270 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 188
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi has dismissed an appeal filed by Airports Authority of India (AAI). The challenge was to an order that had upheld rejection of its refund claim of ₹30.31 lakh, which AAI said was excess service tax paid on lease rent charged to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL). A coram of Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta, who heard the matter, held that merely claiming payment under mistake does not by itself entitle a party to a refund. If a claim is filed late and without a convincing explanation, it cannot be entertained. The tribunal also stressed that such claims are governed by the statutory framework, including limitations.
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs GOQii Technologies Private Limited
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 85064 of 2025 2
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 189
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has ruled that GOQii activity trackers and fitness bands are not just simple pedometers, but devices with a range of features including the ability to communicate data. The tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal against GOQii Technologies Pvt. Ltd The order was passed by a bench of Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban while deciding a dispute over how these imported devices should be classified for customs duty purposes. The case covered imports made between November 20, 2017 and November 15, 2019.
Case Title : Sonova Hearing India Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs – Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 87752 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 190
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently set aside a customs duty demand of about Rs 1.19 crore against Sonova Hearing India Pvt. Ltd. The order also wipes out the interest liability, an equal penalty, and a redemption fine of Rs 1 crore that had been imposed in the classification dispute over imported charging cases used with hearing aids.
Case Title : Sumitra Devi Kejriwal v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Administration), Kolkata
Case Number : Customs Appeal No.75252 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 191
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has set aside an IGST demand raised on an importer functioning under Tea Spares (India) over an alleged short payment of tax on imports of tea plucking and pruning machines.It held that the department could not apply a higher rate under a residual entry without first disputing the classification opted for by the taxpayer. The tribunal observed that “the adjudicating authority has appropriately questioned the department's stance of not having questioned the description of the impugned goods their classification during the course of the post-clearance scrutiny and have merely issued the show cause notice stating therein that the subject imports did not attract IGST under Entry Sl.No.196 of Schedule-II of IGST Notification No.1/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 30.06.2017.”
CESTAT Sets Aside ₹3.63 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand Against India Cements Over Imported Coal
Case Title : The India Cements Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41125 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 192
In a relief to cement major The India Cements Ltd., the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai has set aside a Rs.3.63 crore CENVAT credit demand along with interest and penalty, holding that credit cannot be denied merely because Countervailing Duty (CVD) was paid at concessional rates on imported steam coal. A Chennai bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao allowed the company's appeal against an Order-in-Original dated December 14, 2017, passed by the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Tiruchirappalli, which had confirmed a CENVAT credit demand of Rs. 3.63 crore along with interest and a penalty of Rs. 2.42 crore for the period September 2012 to June 2017.
Case Title : National Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST-Jaipur
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 52372 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 191
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has allowed the appeal filed by National Engineering Industries Ltd., setting aside the denial of CENVAT credit on insurance services, forex hedging consultancy, and employee training and travel-related services, holding that these were used in relation to its manufacturing business. The case was decided by Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta, who found that the services in question were connected, directly or indirectly, with the appellant's manufacturing activity and qualified as input services under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, in the facts of the case.
CESTAT Bangalore Upholds Service Tax On Emmvee Photovoltaics' Bonus Payments To Foreign Shareholders
Case Title : M/s. Emmvee Photovoltaics Power (P) Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 21527 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 193
On 21 April, the Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the service tax on bonus payments made by Emmvee Photovoltaics Power Pvt. Ltd. to foreign shareholders and partly allowed the company's appeal, granting limited relief on penalties imposed under the Order-in-Original. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi held that bonus payments linked to performance conditions constitute consideration for marketing and business promotion services and attract service tax under the reverse charge mechanism.
CESTAT New Delhi Sets Aside Duty Demand and Penalties On Ranbaxy In Ex-Works Valuation Dispute
Case Title : M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50589 OF 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 194
On 24 April, the New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside the customs duty demand, invocation of the extended limitation period, and penalties imposed on Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (now Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.) and customs broker Schenker India Pvt. Ltd. A Bench comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao held that although the importer incorrectly declared ex-works price as FOB value in Bills of Entry, the error arose from oversight and no material established any intention to evade customs duty.
Authority For Advance Ruling
Concessional GST On Irrigation Rubber Rings Conditional On Hard Rubber Use: Rajasthan AAR
Case Title : In Re M/s Arti Pitaliya
Case Number : Advance Ruling No. RAJ/AAR/2025-26/21
The Rajasthan Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that rubber rings used in sprinkler or drip irrigation systems will qualify for concessional Goods and Services Tax (GST) only if they are made of hard rubber and used exclusively for irrigation purposes, and not otherwise. The Bench comprising Members Utkarsha and Dr Akhedan Charan was hearing an application filed by Arti Pitaliya, a Jaipur-based manufacturer of rubber components used in irrigation systems.
Corpus Fund By RWAs Taxable As Advance For Future Services, GST Payable On Receipt: Karnataka AAR
Case Title : In Re Liberty Square Apartment Owners Association
Case Number : KAR.ADRG/08/2026
The Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that corpus or sinking funds collected by residential associations constitute consideration for future supply of services and are liable to Goods and Services Tax (GST) at the time of receipt, treating such collections as advances under the GST law. A Bench comprising Members Kalyanam Rajesh Rama Rao and Sivakumar S Itagi, while hearing an application filed by Liberty Square Apartment Owners Association, ruled that GST liability arises at the stage of receipt of corpus funds.